alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
11TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

City of Stephenville, Self-Insured, * From the 266th District Court

 of Erath County,

 Trial Court No. CV34200.

Vs. No. 11-22-00273-CV * March 7, 2024

Anna Belew, Jodi Belew, * Opinion by Trotter, J.

Minor CB, and Minor RB, (Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J.,

Trotter, J., and Williams, J.)

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that there is 

error in the judgment below. Therefore, in accordance with this court’s opinion, 

we reverse the judgment of the trial court and render judgment in favor of the City 

of Stephenville, Self-Insured. The costs incurred by reason of this appeal are taxed 

against Anna Belew, Jodi Belew, Minor CB, and Minor RB.
# C_2020348EN.01002702.xml

| 19.10.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 348/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.10.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 348/27

---

Order of the General Court of 8 July 2020 — Bontempi and Others v Sand Cph (WhiteSand)

(Case T-350/19) (1)

(2020/C 348/39)

Language of the case: English

The President of the Tenth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 255, 29.7.2019.

---
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Federal Maritime Commission

# AGENCY:

Federal Maritime Commission.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

Notice is hereby given of the names of the members of the Performance Review Board.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Courtney Killion, Director, Office of Human Resources, Federal Maritime Commission, 800 North Capitol Street NW, Washington, DC 20573.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Sec. 4314(c)(1) through (5) of title 5, U.S.C., requires each agency to establish, in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Office of Personnel Management, one or more performance review boards. The board shall review and evaluate the initial appraisal of a senior executive's performance by the supervisor, along with any recommendations to the appointing authority relative to the performance of the senior executive.

Rachel Dickon,

Secretary.

## The Members of the Performance Review Board Are

1. Louis E. Sola, Commissioner

2. Mary T. Hoang, Chief of Staff

3. Kristen A. Monaco, Director, Bureau of Trade Analysis

4. Lucille Marvin, Managing Director

5. Patrick M. Moore, Director, Enterprise Services

6. Steven J. Andersen, General Counsel

[FR Doc. 2021-15498 Filed 7-20-21; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6730-02-P
# C_2021242EN.01002802.xml

| 21.6.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 242/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.6.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 242/28

---

Judgment of the General Court of 21 April 2021 — Foundation for the Protection of the Traditional Cheese of Cyprus named Halloumi v EUIPO — Fontana Food (GRILLOUMI)

(Case T-555/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU word mark GRILLOUMI - Earlier EU collective word mark HALLOUMI - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Detriment to reputation - Article 8(1)(b) and Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) and Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

(2021/C 242/37)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Foundation for the Protection of the Traditional Cheese of Cyprus named Halloumi (Nicosia, Cyprus) (represented by: S. Malynicz QC, S. Baran, Barrister, and V. Marsland, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: D. Gája, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Fontana Food AB (Tyresö, Sweden) (represented by: P. Nihlmark and L. Zacharoff, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 May 2019 (Case R 1355/2018-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Foundation for the Protection of the Traditional Cheese of Cyprus named Halloumi and Fontana Food.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 29 May 2019 (Case R 1355/2018-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Foundation for the Protection of the Traditional Cheese of Cyprus named Halloumi and Fontana Food AB; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 29 May 2019 (Case R 1355/2018-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Foundation for the Protection of the Traditional Cheese of Cyprus named Halloumi and Fontana Food AB;

| 2. | Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Foundation for the Protection of the Traditional Cheese of Cyprus named Halloumi; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Foundation for the Protection of the Traditional Cheese of Cyprus named Halloumi;

| 3. | Orders Fontana Food to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Fontana Food to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 328, 30.9.2019.

---
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Thomas Robinson, Appellant.

— Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (McNab, J.), rendered June 1, 1983, convicting him of burglary in the third degree, grand larceny in the second degree and criminal possession of stolen property in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Judgment affirmed.

The trial court did not err in denying defendant’s motion for a new trial based upon newly discovered evidence. The new evidence consisted only of a statement by a witness which was inconsistent with his trial testimony. Generally, evidence which merely impeaches or contradicts former evidence does not justify ordering a new trial (CPL 330.30 [3]; *People v Salemi,*309 NY 208, *cert denied*350 US 950). Furthermore, the change in testimony was not of such significance as would probably have changed the outcome of the trial (CPL 330.30 [3]; *People v Salemi, supra).*

Although the trial court erred in restricting defendant’s cross-examination of the witness Novotny *(see, Davis v Alaska,*415 US 308), we have determined that this error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt and thus does not require reversal *(see, People v Crimmins,*36 NY2d 230). Defendant sought to bring out in this cross-examination the fact that defendant had previously participated in an investigation and had given testimony which resulted in the conviction and incarceration of Novotny’s brother, resulting in bias against defendant on Novotny’s part. These events were explored fully during defendant’s direct testimony and were discussed extensively in the summation of defense counsel. Since the jury received a full presentation of the facts tending to prove that Novotny was biased, there is no reasonable possibility that the court’s erroneous ruling contributed to the conviction *(see, People v Malizia,*62 NY2d 755, *cert denied*— US —, 105 S Ct 327; *People v Dengler,*109 AD2d 847).

The evidence adduced at trial was sufficient for a rational trier of fact to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that *749defendant was guilty of the crimes charged *(see, People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620). Since defendant’s own admissions were introduced as direct evidence of his participation in the crimes, there was no reason to apply the rigorous standard by which purely circumstantial cases are tested *(see, People v Licitra,*47 NY2d 554).

Finally, we do not find any reason to disturb the sentence of from 1 to 3 years’ imprisonment, which we find to be appropriate under the circumstances *(see, People v Suitte,*90 AD2d 80). Gibbons, J. P., Bracken, Rubin and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>

                                                                      Exhibit 23

                         INDEPENDENT AUDITOR'S CONSENT

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (No.
333-59605) on Form S-8 of Lenox Bancorp, Inc. pertaining to the 1997 Incentive
Plan of our report dated February 11, 2002, relating to the consolidated balance
sheets of Lenox Bancorp, Inc. as of December 31, 2001 and 2000 and the related
consolidated statements of operations, comprehensive income (loss), changes in
stockholders' equity and cash flows for each of the three years in the period
ended December 31, 2001, which report appears in the Annual Report on Form 10-
KSB for the year ended December 31, 2001.


                                    /s/ Clark, Schaefer, Hackett & Co.

                                    Clark, Schaefer, Hackett & Co.


Cincinnati, Ohio
March 26, 2002
# C_2020378EN.01003001.xml

| 9.11.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 378/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.11.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 378/30

---

Judgment of the General Court of 9 September 2020 — Kludi v EUIPO — Adlon Brand (ADLON)

(Case T-144/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark ADLON - Earlier EU word mark ADLON - Proof of the reputation of the earlier mark - Rule 19 of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 (now Article 7 of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625) - Temporal application of the law - Late submission of documents - Board of Appeal’s discretion - Article 95(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Relative ground for refusal - Damage to reputation - Article 8(5) of Regulation 2017/1001 - Unfair advantage taken of the distinctive character or the repute of the earlier trade mark)

(2020/C 378/35)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Kludi GmbH & Co. KG (Menden, Germany) (represented by: A. Zafar, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: M. Fischer and D. Walicka, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Adlon Brand GmbH & Co. KG (Düren, Germany) (represented by: P. Baronikians, E. Saarmann and N. Dimmler, lawyers)

Re

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 November 2018 (Case R 1500/2018-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Adlon Brand and Kludi.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Kludi GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Kludi GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 139, 15.4.2019.

---
#### Ricardo Ernesto AVALOS-PADILLA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 09-73165.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted June 15, 2011.*

Filed June 29, 2011.

Alejandro Garcia, Law Offices of Alejandro Garcia, Commerce, CA, for Petitioner.

Wendy Benner-Leon, Esquire, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.

Before: CANBY, O’SCANNLAIN, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Ricardo Ernesto Avalos-Padilla, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo claims of due process violations in immigration proceedings, San*doval-Luna v. Mukasey,*526 F.3d 1243, 1245-46 (9th Cir.2008), and we deny the petition for review.

Avalos-Padilla’s due process claim fails because Avalos-Padilla was given the opportunity to present witnesses on his behalf, he failed to request a continuance when they did not appear, and he failed to demonstrate that the absence of their testimony prejudiced him. *See Lata v. INS,*204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir.2000) (requiring error and prejudice for a petitioner to prevail on a due process claim).

Avalos-Padilla’s contention that the IJ improperly judged his application on the *449basis of his witnesses’ failure to appear at his hearing is not supported by the record.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

February 6, 2017

No. 04

- 16

- 00209

- CV

Candelaria GARCIA

, Appellant

v.

STATE FARM LLOYDS and Sylvia Garza,

Appellees

From the County Court at Law, Starr County, Texas

Trial Court No. CC

- 15

- 106

Honorable Romero Molina, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

Karen Angelini, Justice

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

Irene Rios, Justice

The court has considered the appell ant ’ s motion for en banc reconsideration, and the

motion is DENIED.

_________________________________ Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 6th day of February, 2017

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
Exhibit 10.77

MERGER AGREEMENT        BY AND BETWEEN        UTSTARCOM TELECOM CO., LTD.        AND        GUANGDONG UTSTARCOM TELECOM CO. LTD.        June 10,
2002

---

THIS MERGER AGREEMENT(the "Agreement") is made as of June 10, 2002 by and between:

UTStarcom
Telecom Co., Ltd. ("HUTS"), a wholly foreign owned enterprise incorporated under the law of People's Republic of China
("PRC") with its legal address at Buildings No. 2 and 3, Yile Industry Zone, No. 129 Wenyi Road, Hangzhou. Zhejiang Province, PRC (its
legal representative is Ying Wu); and

Guangdong
UTStarcom Telecom Co. Ltd. ("GUTS"), a wholly foreign owned enterprise incorporated under the PRC with its legal address
at No. 4, Yunshan East Road, Huizhou, Guangdong Province, PRC (its legal representative is Shao-Ning Chou).

HUTSandGUTSare both subsidiaries of UTStarcom, Inc., and intend to make and
implement a merger of the undertakings of GUTS with and into HUTS pursuant to the terms of this Agreement. The primary purpose of this merger is to consolidate the operations of GUTS and HUTS into one
subsidiary entity, to improve the operational efficiencies of UTStarcom, Inc.

IT IS AGREEDas follows:

1.    MERGER



2.    MERGER OF PROPERTIES, ASSETS AND LIABILITIES



3.    ALLOCATION OF EMPLOYEES OF GUTS



4.    COMPLETION



---



5.    TRANSFER OF PROPERTIES, RIGHTS AND INTERESTS



6.    CLEARANCE AND SUCCESSION OF CREDITS AND DEBTS



7.    REPRESENTATIONS AND WARRANTIES



2

---



8.    TERMINAT1ON



9.    GENERAL



3

---



10.  COSTS AND EXPENSES



11.  LIABILITY FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT



12.  GOVERNING LAW AND DISPUTE RESOLUTION



IN WITNESS, this Agreement has born entered into the day and year first above written.

| |  | UTSTARCOM TELECOM CO., LTD.               
| |  | ------------------------------------------
| |  | /s/YING WUAuthorized Representative       
| |  | [Stamp]                                   
| |  | GUANGDONG UTSTARCOM TELECOM CO. LTD.      
| |  | /s/SHAO-NING CHOUAuthorized Representative
| |  | [Stamp]                                   

4

---

Translation Certification

I hereby certify, under penalty of perjury of the laws of the State of California, that I have provided English translations of the following documents, and that
each such translation represents a fair and accurate English translation of the original Chinese document



Dated:
August 3, 2002

| |  | By: |  | /s/SHI WENQIANShi Wenqian Corporate
AttorneyUTStarcom China Co., Ltd.
| |  | --- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------

---

QuickLinks
# C_2021163EN.01002402.xml

| 3.5.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 163/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.5.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 163/24

---

Judgment of the General Court of 10 March 2021 — Kerry Luxembourg v EUIPO — Ornua (KERRYMAID)

(Case T-693/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark KERRYMAID - Earlier EU figurative mark Kerrygold - Relative ground for refusal - Geographical name - Dominant element - Peaceful coexistence - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Application of the law ratione temporis)

(2021/C 163/30)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Kerry Luxembourg Sàrl (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: F. Traub, lawyer, and I. Connor, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: H. O’Neill and S. Hanne, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Ornua Co-operative Ltd (Dublin, Ireland) (represented by: E. Armijo Chávarri and A. Sanz Cerralbo, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 July 2019 (Case R 2473/2013-5), relating to opposition proceedings between Kerry Luxembourg and Ornua.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Kerry Luxembourg Sàrl to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and by Ornua Co-operative Ltd. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Kerry Luxembourg Sàrl to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and by Ornua Co-operative Ltd.

---

(1)  OJ C 413, 9.12.2019.

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     (Replace this text with the legend)
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0001030418
<NAME>                        BIONX IMPLANTS,INC.
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
<CURRENCY>                                     US
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                   1
<CASH>                                           9,300
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    4,273
<ALLOWANCES>                                       238
<INVENTORY>                                     11,106
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                26,653
<PP&E>                                           3,195
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,047
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  33,959
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            4,543
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            17
<OTHER-SE>                                      29,341
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    33,959
<SALES>                                          5,107
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 5,284
<CGS>                                            1,348
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    5,086
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                (285)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   (865)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      (865)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      0.1
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      0.1
        

</TABLE>
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CertificationPursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as AdoptedPursuant to**

 

**Section 906of Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

 

I, Hal M. Krisbergh, the Principal ExecutiveOfficer of WorldGate Communications, Inc., hereby certify, pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Form 10-Q/A of WorldGateCommunications, Inc., for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2005,which this certification accompanies, fully complies with requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)) andinformation contained in the June 30, 2005 Form 10-Q/A fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results ofoperations of WorldGate Communications, Inc.

 

A signed original of this written statementrequired by Section 906 has been provided to WorldGate and will beretained by WorldGate and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commissionor its staff upon request.

 
| Dated: January 23, 2006 |   | /s/  HAL M. KRISBERGH                             |
|-------------------------|--------|--------------------------------------------------------|
|                    |   | Hal M. Krisbergh                                       |
|                    |   | Chief Executive Officer  (Principal Executive Officer) |

 

----
# C_2020103EN.01003002.xml

| 30.3.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 103/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.3.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 103/30

---

Order of the General Court of 31 January 2020 — Irish Wind Farmers’ Association and Others v Commission

(Case T-6/19) (1)

(Action for annulment - State aid - Tax advantages granted by Ireland to fossil fuel producers - Letter from the Commission - Act not open to challenge - Inadmissibility)

(2020/C 103/43)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Irish Wind Farmers’ Association Clg (Kilkenny, Ireland), Carrons Windfarm Ltd (Shanagolden, Ireland), Foyle Windfarm Ltd (Dublin, Ireland), Greenoge Windfarm Ltd (Bunclody, Ireland) (represented by: M. Segura Catalán and M. Clayton, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Grønfeldt, K. Herrmann and S. Noë, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for the annulment of the Commission’s letter of 25 October 2018 concerning State aid allegedly granted by Ireland to fossil fuel producers.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed as inadmissible; |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed as inadmissible;

| 2. | Each party shall bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Each party shall bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 93, 11.3.2019.

---